Henderson gets Ad Populum

Gerard Henderson made no attempt to conceal his glee at the re-election of Tony Blair in Britain. Like many conservative pundits, Henderson views the election as a referendum on the Iraq war, with Blair’s (and Bush’s and Howard’s) victory signalling a strong ‘YES’ vote for the war from the electorate(s).

That none of them has suffered [Jose Maria] Aznar's fate says a lot about the personal conviction and political courage of Bush, Blair and Howard. But it also tells us plenty about voters in America, Britain and Australia.

Weak and incompetent oppositions do not enter the equation - nor the fact that the war hardly even received a mention in the recent election in Australia.

Henderson suggests that Raimond Gaita, a professor of philosophy at King's College at the University of London and at the Australian Catholic University, is out of touch with reality, and describes his article published in Quarterly Essay as “ritual, and (boringly) predictable, criticism of the Howard Government.” Would it be fair to suggest that Henderson’s articles defending the Howard Government are becoming “ritual, and boringly predictable”?

Henderson closes with:

The recent successes of Bush, Blair and Howard suggest that a majority of the electorate has a better understanding of the complexity and demands of modern democratic governments than the liberal left.

But at the moment, George Bush is suffering some of the lowest approval ratings in history – can I therefore suggest that the majority of the American electorate has a better understanding of the complexity and demands of modern democratic governments than the conservative right? In a nutshell, Henderson (and his fellow Howard loving colleagues), continue to engage in a variation of ad populum argument…

People voted for Bush/Blair/Howard > Bush/Blair/Howard launched an invasion on Iraq in 2003 > People supported (and continue to support) that military venture.